Complaints Procedure

This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, procedures, or actions of The JHRS's editorial staff. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively. The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about.

Definition

Our definition of a complaint is as follows:

  • The complainant defines his or her expression of unhappiness as a complaint;

AND

  • We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published (which happens every day) but thinks that there has been a failure of process - for example, a long delay or a rude response - or a severe misjudgment.
  • The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of The JHRS's editorial department - content or process.

JHRS is aware of the complaints stated below:
1)          Authorship complaints
2)          Plagiarism complaints
3)          Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission
4)          Research results misappropriation
5)          Allegations of research errors and fraud
6)          Research standards violations
7)          Undisclosed conflicts of interest
8)          Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers

How to make a complaint

The best way to reach us is by email. Complaints should ideally be made to the person the complainant is already in contact with over the matter being complained about. If that is not appropriate please email info@almamater.si 

Whenever possible complaints will be dealt with by the relevant member of the editorial staff. If that person cannot deal with the complaint he or she will refer it to a section editor or the executive editor.

Complaints that are not under the control of The JHRS's editorial staff will be sent to the relevant heads of institute.

Complaints about editorial matters that are sent to the chairman of the JHRS Board, to the chief executive of JHRS (the publishing group), and officials will usually be referred in the first instance to the editor (and invariably if they relate to editorial content, for which the editor is wholly responsible).

All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days.

If possible a full response will be made within four weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within four weeks. Further interim responses will be provided until the complaint is resolved.

If the complainant is not happy with the resolution he or she can ask for the complaint to be escalated to the individual's manager or to the executive editor.

If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final.

If a complainant, remains unhappy after what the editor considers a definitive reply the complainant may complain to an external body (see below).

External bodies

If the complainant has exhausted the internal processes and is still unhappy he or she can complain to one of the following bodies:

The Committee on Publication Ethics

COPE publishes a code of practice for editors of scientific, technical, and medical journals http://www.publicationethics.org. It will consider complaints against editors but only once a journal's own complaints procedures have been exhausted.

COPE charts of authorship complaints  

The process for handling cases requiring corrections, retractions and editorial expressions of concern

Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences ensures compliance with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scientific Papers in Medical Journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf) and the Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance).
We aim to ensure the integrity of the academic record of all published or potential publications. Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
Corrections
Errors in published papers may be identified in the form of a corrigendum or erratum when the Editor-in-Chief considers it appropriate to inform the journal readership about a previous error and makes a correction to the error in the published article. The corrigendum or erratum will appear as a new article in the journal, and will cite the original published article.

Retractions
Retractions are considered and published when there are severe errors in an article that invalidate the conclusions. Retractions are also made in cases where there is evidence of publication malpractice, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research.
According to industry best practice and in accordance with COPE guidelines, AME implements the following procedure if a retraction is confirmed:
1. A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.
2. In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.
3. The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note. It is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.
4. The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the HTML and PDF indicating on each page that it has been “retracted.”

Editorial expressions of concern
Where substantial doubt arises as to the honesty or integrity of a submitted or published article, journal editors may consider issuing an expression of concern. However, expressions of concern should only be issued if an investigation into the problems relating to the article has proven inconclusive, and if there remain strong indicators that the concerns are valid. Under some rare cases, an editorial expression of concern may also be issued when an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time. The expression of concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.